How can you call him a racist? He says he isn’t!

I am NOT racist. Just because I don’t like the appearnce of black people does not make me racist. Just because I don’t like a particular painting, does not mean I dislike the medium of Art as a whole!

But I will say this, Blacks do make up the majority of the inmates in the prisons in the country.

And I think it’s White people that make up the majority of white collar executive types of positions in America. Probably more Whites are 1 percenters than there are blacks.

When I think of all of the classical composers like Mozart etc that were pure genius, I don’t recall many of them being Black.

This is the 1st black president we’ve had so far and look what a horrible job he has done.

So in the grand scheme of things, it appears the scales are tilted in favor of Whites being the superior race, after all we weren’t the ones that were enslaved workinf cotton fields for 40o years..

Just pointing out that history seems to show whites as always rising to the top and dominating all other countries and cultures and taking what they want and doing as they please, being the dominant, most powerful, most intelligent race….

I’m not saying I personally believe whites are superior to blacks, I am not a scientist, and I have not studied it to any great depth…

Just pointing out some observations.

But, again, for the millionth time, I may be a jerk, but I’m not a racist, there’s a big difference.

My best friends are black and I have no hatred for them.

If you follow the link, you’ll also discover that he is not a sexist pig, nosir, not him.

Comments

Good lord. I know there are a lot of criticisms levied at Jared Diamond, but his stuff is written simply enough that this guy needs to be locked in a room with Guns, Germs, and Steel until he can adequately pass an essay exam on it.

I still don’t get this “Obama has made a mess” thing. The economy is better, the wars are mostly over. We are threatening foreign dictators as usual. Life is good. But yeah, I know. Being President while black, teh gay, the atheists, religious freedom. All this stuff that really doesn’t affect him, and he is hollering. Sigh.

But I will say this, Blacks do make up the majority of the inmates in the prisons in the country. And I think it’s White people that make up the majority of white collar executive types of positions in America.

Because white people are “smart enuogh” to rob people the right way, with a pen.

I am NOT a reptilian. Just because I’m a cold-blooded shape-shifter does not make me a reptilian. Just because I don’t like a particular painting, does not mean I dislike the medium of Art as a whole!

But I will say this, reptilians make up the majority of people in the country.

Hence it’s reptilians that make up the majority of white collar executive types of positions in America. Probably more reptilians are 1 percenters than there are humans.

When I think of all of the classical composers like Mozart etc that were pure genius, they must have been reptilians.

This is the 1st human president we’ve had so far and look what a horrible job he has done.

So in the grand scheme of things, it appears the scales are tilted in favor of reptilians being the superior race, after all they aren’t the ones that are being fooled..

Just pointing out that history seems to show reptilians as always rising to the top and dominating all other countries and cultures and taking what they want and doing as they please, being the dominant, most powerful, most intelligent race….

I’m not saying I personally believe reptilians are superior to humans, I am not a scientist, and I have not studied it to any great depth…

Just pointing out some observations.

But, again, for the millionth time, I am a jerk, but I’m not a reptilian, there’s a big difference.

He’s not gay, he just happens to not like women. That doesn’t make him gay. All the great lovers of his history were guys, that doesn’t make him gay. He dated a chick once, but she got a headache after listening to him explain how he wasn’t gay. And not racist.

See how this proves his point,women are terrible as lovers. Men are much better at being lovers.

He doesn’t care race people are, but he is concerned about dangerous religions like Islam.

In America it’s more dangerous to be a Muslim (or just look like you might be one) than it is to be around a Muslim. Our prison population is filled by a majority of Christians. So tell me, what makes Islam so dangerous?

@ Rey Fox, I suspect (and have sometimes observed) that some of these “black friends” have an unstated past tense and “back in middle school” tacked onto them, or are more accurately described as acquaintances or co-workers. Not all, of course, but some.

This guy. . . I don’t even know. I’m trying to stick with “amused.” His Very Authoritative Rant on Tattoos is kind of funny. . . wait, no; it’s actually just gross.

Oh, and after the bit about how he won’t date black women because doesn’t understand history, he notes that he’s always felt like “an old black man trapped in a white man’s body,” because he can play blues guitar, so he doesn’t need outside friends, anyway! He can just ask his soul whether it’s ok to be a racist douchenozzle.

But, again, for the millionth time, I may be a jerk, but I’m not a racist, there’s a big difference.

My best friends are black and I have no hatred for them.

Another jerk who actually wheels out the old standby ‘some of my best friends are *insert name of the target of prejudice*’. The trope sounds like it is just a funny stereotype, but it really does seem like racist and homophobic arsehats are somehow hardwired to say it with monotonous regularity as some defence against public opprobrium, even when they must surely be aware that it occupies pride of place at the top of the bigot bingo card.

@20 Daniel: just replace “black” by “muslim” in this tirade and tell me the difference.

As for this guy – he taking credit for a genius like Mozart just because the latter more or less had the same amount of pigment in his skin is a sure sign of racism. To spell it out: yes, Mozart was a superior composer to about all blacks (we could argue about some jazz guys, but let’s for the sake of argument accept that Classicism a la Mozart is superior to any form of jazz). That says exactly zero about this guy’s (or mine; I’m white too) superiority to anyone regarding composing, let alone any other human activity.
For instance I’m pretty sure Neil deGrasse Tyson is superior to Mozart, this guy, me and the vast majority of white people in the world regarding physics. Sidney Poitier is the superior actor. Jessy Norman the superior vocalist – and she sang a fine Mozart. Etc. etc.
Lots of superior blacks.
Of course this guys is not going to accept this. Which proves that he is a racist indeed.

The guy quoted here is a racist.
Pat Condell is not. He doesn’t care race people are, but he is concerned about dangerous religions like Islam.

What part of deliberately scaremongering about the supposedly frightening and dangerous character of the adherants of a religion whose membership is primarily composed of people of Asian and Arabic descent does not sound racist to you? Trying to obscure rants about the immigration of majority non-White peoples into the supposedly ‘rightfully White’ heartlands of Europe with horror stories about how nasty certain forms of Islam can be barely qualifies as a dogwhistle – Condell’s agenda could hardly be much clearer short of the deployment of burning crosses and ridiculous looking hooded white outfits…

Historical fail too… White people have always dominated? Aside from the fact that ‘white’ doesn’t make sense in a historical context, I’m sure many Western Europeans would have like to know this prior to the 16th century.

It’s only one small pickle on a giant fail sandwich, but as for “not many” 18th century composers of color….uh, in .37 seconds Almighty Google gave me Chevalier de Saint-George. Also lots of blogs, symposia, articles, etc dedicated to classical composers and musicians of African origin.

Oddly enough, I had a brief discussion n the topic of racism recently. I argued out that the “Us versus Them” mentality is very common and takes many different forms, with racism being one of them. There are also two aspects to racism, thinking that one group is superior or inferior to another, and discriminating based on race. Consequently you can be a racist in one aspect, but not the other.

I argued that many or most people are racists in one form or another. You might not think that one group is superior to another, and not discriminate in terms of working with or promoting people of different races, but you might object to your son/daughter dating someone of a different race or religion.

So another subtlety relates to how your racism affects others. Obviously racism in the workplace is unacceptable, such as not promoting deserving candidates of a different race. However if you choose not to date people of a different race, that form of racism doesn’t really hurt anyone other than yourself by limiting your dating prospects.

Yeah, that part is total bullshit, like everything else. I say this as An Expert™. Something tells me he probably couldn’t even name two other “classical” composers without assistance, geniuses though he may believe them to be, much less have any concept of what supposedly makes them geniuses. (You know, to distinguish them from “not-pure-geniuses,” other than by looking at their skin.)

Besides “classical”* composers like Mozart, there are lots of great musicians (geniuses even), in whatever culture or period you could name. And there are in fact lots of non-white (non-male, etc.) classical composers. I also don’t know if Jews and some other groups would count, considering their history of mistreatment in the European music scene … but however it goes, that’s yet another reason why this fails to even have content, much less any merit based on the facts.

What he’s effectively saying is that this one white person (Mozart) is not a black person, and there are other white people like him who are also not black people. (And he’s not going to mention the black people who would otherwise qualify). What a gloriously useful “observation” that is. Only a genius white person could come up with something like that.

*It isn’t clear whether that means some people during the “common-practice period” or if it’s classical in a broader sense regardless of the period. Probably neither, because it’s just ignorant racist noise. But it makes no difference anyway.

So in the grand scheme of things, it appears the scales are tilted in favor of Whites being the superior race, after all we weren’t the ones that were enslaved workinf cotton fields for 40o years..

Just pointing out that history seems to show whites as always rising to the top and dominating all other countries and cultures and taking what they want and doing as they please, being the dominant, most powerful, most intelligent race….

Immediately followed by:

I’m not saying I personally believe whites are superior to blacks

So he is not saying that whites are superior to blacks, he is just saying that whites are superior to blacks?
It is some mighty cognitive dissonance to have such contradictions in one post.

Oh, how do you quote people in comic sans again? Because if anyone deserves that treatment it’s this clown.

So, he can’t communicate his central thesis, which shows he should learn English or go home.

But even if his unstudied intuition is correct, that among the ~3 milliion 1%ers, the number of whites might actually edge the number of Blacks by 1 or 2 (possibly by as many as 50!), simple demographics would tell us that given equal ability, equal opportunity, equal resources, and equal [desire + cultural encouragement] to enter into and succeed at the most money-focused of US professions, we should expect over 2 million whites and less than 400k Blacks. If he knew anything about math, it would never occur to him to think that in a country where whites outnumber Blacks in every wealth and income category, outnumbering Blacks in the 1% means something about Black talent.

As he himself has said, Romeo Rose just can’t help his intellect. As further evidence of his intellect, we can examine whether he meant that in the same way we understand it…

You know how grouchy conservatives like to complain about some supposed “everybody gets a trophy” mentality among Today’s Kids which generates an unearned sense of self worth?

This right here is the ACTUAL “everybody gets a trophy” mentality which has the power to do ACTUAL harm. Except it’s “every straight white guy gets a trophy” because they get born into a world where the table is set for them.

So another subtlety relates to how your racism affects others. Obviously racism in the workplace is unacceptable, such as not promoting deserving candidates of a different race. However if you choose not to date people of a different race, that form of racism doesn’t really hurt anyone other than yourself by limiting your dating prospects.

True enough, if you can make utterly sure that your dislike of dating people of a given skin color does not in any way mean you treat people differently because of their skin colors.

Except, of course, that because you don’t want to date people of one given skin color already means you treat people differently based on their skin color. One could argue that is does not harm if you can be assured that it doesn’t inform any other aspect of your interactions with other people.
How would you do that, exactly?

Or to put it another way, turn it around: why does the person think people of a given skin color aren’t valid dating material? I suppose it’s arguable – just – that such a preference could be totally free of any societal baggage or associated value judgements, but in the real world, that would be disingenuous bullshit.

I don’t get what’s so superior about being a dehumanizing tyrant who enslaves, slaughters, and steals from other people. Us white people are the villains of history, and we continue to do a lot of sucky things in the present.

@Michael (#45)
Racism isn’t a topic for laypeople to opine on without having familiarized themselves with at least some of the current discourse. I think you mean well, but you come off as almost wholly uninformed. If you have an interest in racism, you’d do well to read up on what the experts have to say, starting with the sociological definition of racism. (The short form is “racism = prejudice + power”.) And then look up and concepts like “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” and the harm they do. Also, try to refrain from atomizing racism and racist behaviors. Racism is a social phenomenon and you can’t sensibly remove it from its complex social context. (For instance, when a white person declines to date people of a certain race, it feeds into existing racist beliefs about how a person’s value is measured. It’s never just one guy saying these things, after all, and the cumulative effect of their disdain, combined with how society already puts a premium on whiteness and white opinions, can damage the self esteem of people of color.)

Wow. That’s just an overwhelming amount of fail, on so many levels. It’s always the same with the “I’m not a racist!” people. There’s always a following, er, explanation of their lack of racism which is appalling.

I am SO done with people thinking they are not racist because they “have friends” that are members of the race they consider inferior. How hard is it to understand that if you think your race is superior to any other race, you are a fucking racist! If you don’t like something somebody does, or says, or their musical tastes, or their fashion sense, or their dialect, or the way they raise their children, AND YOU BLAME ANY PART OF ANYTHING YOU DON’T LIKE ON THEIR RACE, THEN YOU ARE A RACIST. I know, I was one of you when I was younger, and I am both ashamed that I was that way and glad I am no longer that way. And, by the way, I NEVER thought of myself as a racist. I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood and had mostly hispanic friends and one black friend. We were all low-income kids in a hardscrabble area east of Los Angeles. But man, I was a fucking racist.

By the way, all the same applies to sexism and anti-LGBT bigotry as well. And yes, even though I considered myself a feminist and gay-rights advocate, I was very guilty of the same kinds of sexism and anti-LGBT bigotry for the first decades of my life.

Given the examples of his dislikes this person ought to take that final step and call himself a racist. At present he is fooling nobody but himself. Also, all his examples seem to come from cut ‘n paste racist sources; not exactly an intellectual goldmine.

@PDX_Greg (#60)
Exactly. No one’s ever racist because being racist makes you a bad person. They’re not bad people so they can’t be racist. Not even if they’re one step away from cutting eyeholes in their sheets.

Yeah, this guy is the living embodiment of the No True Klansman defense.

Elsewhere on his site, he states that he would not date any woman, of any race, who has ever been with a black man. That’s some extra-special high-octane racism there. Is he afraid blackness might be contagious? Or does he just assume that any woman who was “desperate” enough to do so couldn’t possibly meet up to his standards?

I wonder what he thinks a racist is and what qualities such a person would have that he does not exhibit? Maybe he thinks you have to be a dues paying clansman and his check hasn’t cleared yet? dunno. Guess I just don’t understand that kind of self deception.

Elsewhere on his site, he states that he would not date any woman, of any race, who has ever been with a black man. That’s some extra-special high-octane racism there. Is he afraid blackness might be contagious? Or does he just assume that any woman who was “desperate” enough to do so couldn’t possibly meet up to his standards?

Yes, it makes me think of Haidt’s different types of moral reasoning. That one would fall squarely under “disgust/purity” and it’s highly correlated with conservative, authoritarian, exclusionary thinking.

But, again, for the millionth time, I may be a jerk, but I’m not a racist, there’s a big difference.

My best friends are black and I have no hatred for them.

I am even convinced that he is sincere about not hating. Not that he is not a racist, but he appears to think that “racist” must mean one must wish to kill people who look differently. Only if you plan to shove people of colour into the ovens of the concentration camps you are a real racist, or something.

Elsewhere on his site, he states that he would not date any woman, of any race, who has ever been with a black man. That’s some extra-special high-octane racism there. Is he afraid blackness might be contagious? Or does he just assume that any woman who was “desperate” enough to do so couldn’t possibly meet up to his standards?

And/or he believes the racist stereotypes about the anatomy and sexuality of black people in general and black men in particular and assumes he couldn’t measure up. >.>

Elsewhere on his site, he states that he would not date any woman, of any race, who has ever been with a black man. That’s some extra-special high-octane racism there. Is he afraid blackness might be contagious? Or does he just assume that any woman who was “desperate” enough to do so couldn’t possibly meet up to his standards?

It gets even worse than that. He explicitly says it’s “like bestiality” because black men “look like apes.”

At A. Noyd, No. 57, I’m not sure that not wanting to date persons of a certain race makes one a racist; it may simply mean that one is not sexually attracted to members of that race, and to a large extent sexual attraction is subjective. You like what you like, and that’s all there is to it, so long as you don’t mistake your subjective tastes for anything other than your subjective tastes.

That said, I think the real issue here is with definitions. I agree that by any reasonable definition of the word this guy is a racist, but somehow he has convinced himself differently. I’d like to hear how he defines racist.

At A. Noyd, No. 57, I’m not sure that not wanting to date persons of a certain race makes one a racist; it may simply mean that one is not sexually attracted to members of that race, and to a large extent sexual attraction is subjective. You like what you like, and that’s all there is to it, so long as you don’t mistake your subjective tastes for anything other than your subjective tastes.

I think this is basically true – after all, I think the social justice community pretty clear that one is not wronging someone by not being sexually attracted to them. On the other hand, it’s worth examining one’s feelings to try to identify and reduce the influence of ambient racist tropes and attitudes on one’s thinking; these feelings don’t tend to form in a vacuum.

@throwaway, gut-punched
“In America it’s more dangerous to be a Muslim (or just look like you might be one) than it is to be around a Muslim.”

I think you need to stop being ashamed of your own country so much. America is one of the safest countries for a Muslim to be in and they have more freedoms than pretty much anywhere in Muslim majority countries. No Sharia and no authoritarian rulers. More freedoms, more opportunities, higher standard of living. Where do you get something even remotely close to that apart from maybe a handful of countries like Turkey where the political aspects of Islam had to be crushed by force to be kept at bay? If you were Muslim who cared about living a good life, and you could pick one country, where would you live? If it’s not USA or some other western country, I’ll be surprised.

Dangerous how? The number of Muslims physically attacked for their religion is low: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html You want to know what’s several orders of magnitude more dangerous? Being a Coptic Christian in Egypt. Or Christian in Syria.

“Our prison population is filled by a majority of Christians. So tell me, what makes Islam so dangerous?”

What does that have to do with anything? Take for example Hamza Tzortzis. He’s never a committed a crime (to my knowledge at least) but he is a radical. Not Al’Qaeda or Choudary level of radicalism, but he does support Sharia including “progressive” (i.e. offensive) jihad against unbelievers. Which reminds me, he’d probably do less harm to humanity as a convicted thief than as the Islamic supremacist he is.

USA is a majority Christian country so of course the majority in prison are Christian. Do they do it because they’re Christian? You need to establish a plausible link between the teachings of Christianity, or whatever sect/denomination of it they follow, and the crimes being committed. Most of the time you won’t be able to because there’s no link, and most of them wouldn’t be in jail if they actually followed the things they claimed to believe. Do you honestly believe that churches (even from some radical YEC evangelical sects) teach their followers to steal, rape, kill, deal drugs etc.? No, they teach the opposite.

@”What part of deliberately scaremongering about the supposedly frightening and dangerous character of the adherants of a religion whose membership is primarily composed of people of Asian and Arabic descent does not sound racist to you?”

The adherents of Islam could all be white for all I care, I don’t have a very favorable view of Islam because it has some very dangerous political aspects for example the doctrine of warfare against all unbelievers which are given the option between conversion, subjugation (plus payment of jizya, a tribute) and war. This is in chapter 9 verse 29, it’s been the main justification for jihad warfare for 1400 years, and no, there is nothing like it in Christianity. You’ll never in a million years be able to quote Jesus saying fight the unbelievers until they pay tribute. And you’re never going to find a Christian manual of jurisprudence (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever, take your pick) that lays out an elaborate political system like, say, “Reliance of the Traveler” does for the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam. For people to dismiss this as “all abrahamic religions are [equally] bad” (as if Christianity and Islam don’t have distinct theologies) shows they just don’t know. Typically they just quote-mine the horrible passages of the Old Testament, ignoring that mainstream Christian understanding doesn’t view those laws as binding. From lay person to the highest clergy, they all largely agree you aren’t supposed to implement OT laws.

Now if you just want to dismiss all that and make up a silly conspiracy theory about Pat hating Asians and Arabs, you still have to explain:

Why doesn’t he make a single video about Hinduism? Most Hindus aren’t white either, in fact most non-whites in Britain aren’t Muslim. How about Coptic Christians? How about Buddhism? Back to his country for a moment, how about black Christians?

(Pretty much your entire response is predicated upon reading fails and logic fails, but I have a soft spot for pointing out someone using evidence that undermines their own point)

Oh look, only 107 hate crimes against Muslims! Out of 1300 religious-oriented hate crimes! That’s only 8% of religious hate crimes targeting Muslims. That’s like a drop in the bucket! Those Muslims have it fuckin’ easy, amirite?

Even if I’m wrong, just look at hate crimes overall! I mean, out of 6604 hate crimes! 107 hate crimes against Muslims is just nuthin. I mean only 1.6% of hate crimes total are against Muslims for being Muslim! That’s no big deal, right? I mean, sure, they could also have been targeted for their race, since only 30% of Muslims are white but still! That’s such a small percentage, right?

But, I mean, I guess as long as it is really most dangerous to be black in the U.S., and as long as other countries are worse, I guess who cares, right? I mean, gosh.

he doctrine of warfare against all unbelievers which are given the option between conversion, subjugation (plus payment of jizya, a tribute) and war. This is in chapter 9 verse 29, it’s been the main justification for jihad warfare for 1400 years, and no, there is nothing like it in Christianity. You’ll never in a million years be able to quote Jesus saying fight the unbelievers until they pay tribute.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. -Deuteronomy 17:12

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die……

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

-Deuteronomy 13:6-19

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

The doctrine of warfare against all unbelievers which are given the option between conversion, subjugation (plus payment of jizya, a tribute) and war

It always boggles the mind how people will use a sign of mercy as a sign of evil. Jizya is considerably less evil than the options that Christians employed historically, and Christians continue to have state-funded churches using taxes – often without letting people opt out. Jizya is worse than the common alternatives now, but it’s not universally employed at all. Its inclusion in the holy book is an unfettered good in comparison to contemporaries.

I think you need to stop being ashamed of your own country so much. America is one of the safest countries for a Muslim to be in and they have more freedoms than pretty much anywhere in Muslim majority countries

Um, no. No, no no. There are muslim majority democracies that won’t assume they’re terrorists and detain them (Happened to my prior landlord – no torture, thankfully), sometimes indefinitely and with torture.

If you were Muslim who cared about living a good life, and you could pick one country, where would you live? If it’s not USA or some other western country, I’ll be surprised.

Unrelated to the prior, USAnians really need to stop this triumphalism of being a US Citizen. Being here is better than being in a truly, abominably poor country, but just being a peon here isn’t really better than being a peon in Brazil or a number of other countries.

USA is a majority Christian country so of course the majority in prison are Christian. Do they do it because they’re Christian? You need to establish a plausible link between the teachings of Christianity, or whatever sect/denomination of it they follow, and the crimes being committed.

Why doesn’t he make a single video about Hinduism? Most Hindus aren’t white either, in fact most non-whites in Britain aren’t Muslim.

Because it’s not palatable* to whale on anyone but your muslim immigrants at the moment. If you know anything about nativist movements, you should know what comes later if it works though.

*If I were the sort to try to reclaim words I don’t give a shit about, I’d say it’s not politically correct – in the original usage of that word of saying what you feel is actually generally popular instead of what you’re thinking.

First off, I was talking about the consequences of having a so-called racial “preference,” because Michael assumed there was no harm. However, race is a social construct, not a biological reality, so any race-based aversions or preferences have to be learned. What’s default, if anything, is that we learn to value those attributes to which our culture attaches high prestige (like whiteness) and devalue those attributes our culture stigmatizes (like blackness). Even without specifically being taught, we learn to like and hate in line with cultural norms. And preferring whiteness and having an aversion to blackness is racist because those feelings come from internalizing racist values.

If you wouldn’t date a black person because black people just turn you off, that may be a subjective taste because a) you experience it that way, and b) the degree to which we internalize values is subjective. But it’s not a taste that could have developed on its own or outside a particular social context.

We owe it to others to challenge any of our tastes that support systems of oppression. We should try to change them (yes, it can be done) and, failing that, we should stay aware of them and do our best to mitigate any harm we might do when we communicate them.

danieln @75:
There are plenty of reasons for citizens of the United States to be ashamed of this country. One reason-as relates to this thread-is the horrific treatment of marginalized people. Black people for instance, continue to be discriminated against and are the targets of bigotry and racism. The guy in the OP is an example of how living in a culture permeated with racism can poison one’s mind (ask yourself how he came to his conclusions. What evidence, if any, did he base his opinion on?)
The US needs to have a good, hard look at its treatment of black people on multiple levels (socially, politically, economically). The continued refusal to do so is but one source of shame hanging over the head of our country. That you view the US as you do speaks volumes.

If a person finds only a given race attractive, or another race unattractive, that can be called racism, but unless they are blatantly advertising that fact or trying to influence others, how does it negatively affect society at large? Everyone has their sexual preferences, and shouldn’t have to justify them. Given the heterogeneity of society, not only are there people who exclusively date their own race, but there are plenty of people who have interracial relationships. Perhaps it’s because I live in a multicultural city in Canada, but I see plenty of interracial relationships, and don’t detect much (if any) stigma here (at least by the younger generations).

Movies and tv also seem to have kept up with things. ‘The Jeffersons’ neighbours were an introduction, ‘Soap’ pointed a finger at those that disapproved, ‘Jungle Fever’ gave the opposite view, but worrying about it seems to be a joke these days (eg. “Why is all your porn Asian?” from ‘You, Me, & Dupree’). Characters who disapprove of interracial couples are invariably the villains (‘Stepmonster’).

Anyway, your comments are noted, but I don’t have a vested interest in the topic. Just adding my opinion to the discussion.

but unless they are blatantly advertising that fact or trying to influence others, how does it negatively affect society at large?

We influence one another without trying. It’s how nature as built us. And advertising racist preferences doesn’t have to be blatant. It gets out. It gets out partly because, as I said, it’s not just one person doing it. Look up how racism works with online dating/matchmaking sites, for instance. (Like OkCupid.) It also gets out in the bottlenecks of who chooses people for jobs like acting or modeling and in the responses to those choices. It gets out in things like Google autocomplete for the supermodel Alek Wek, which suggests “alek wek ugly” as the second choice.

Often enough, though, this sort of racism is super blatant. Humans are pretty good at picking up on when we’re denigrated and fucking terrible at concealing our denigration. This [TW for racism] is just one of several Tumblrs that collects racist messages that get sent to women of color on dating sites.

As for the harm it does, I suggested you look up “microaggressions” and “implicit bias” as a place to start. There’s a lot written on both of those.

Everyone has their sexual preferences, and shouldn’t have to justify them.

Why shouldn’t we? Read my reply to abewoelk at #82. (And keep in mind that orientations and preferences aren’t the same thing.)

I see plenty of interracial relationships, and don’t detect much (if any) stigma

What you can detect and what’s really going on are two very different things. That’s a general rule, but it’s especially true if you’re white.

Characters who disapprove of interracial couples are invariably the villains (‘Stepmonster’).

It doesn’t mean squat that people know, on an overt level, that racism is bad. It doesn’t stop them from doing racist things all the time. Like the jackass in the OP, they just deny their racism so they can keep thinking of themselves as good people. For a great many people (particularly whites), racism is only bad “in theory.” I mean, go to the final two graphs in the first link I gave you above and look at the difference in the way people answered “Is interracial marriage a bad idea?” versus “Would you strongly prefer to date someone of your own skin color/racial background?”

Just adding my opinion to the discussion.

Yeah, and yours is an uninformed opinion and you should seek to fix that. If you lack a vested interest, it shouldn’t be too hard to educate yourself. (Although, people who go out of their way to have their opinions heard almost always do have a vested interest, whether they recognize it or not.)

A. Noyd, your position essentially comes down to this: People ought to like what you think they should like, rather than what they actually do like. The same issue arises, by the way, with men who prefer thin women; you can complain all you like about how sexist and misogynistic they are for feeling that way, but they, too, like what they like rather than what you think they should like. So aside from the fact that you’re pissing in the wind — nobody is going to stop liking what they like just because you think they should like something else — the obvious question is: Who died and left you judge of other people’s sexual preferences? Why is it any of your damn business what someone else finds attractive?

In my case, I am attracted to men, and I prefer men with certain physical characteristics not found very often in East Asian men. On occasion I encounter an East Asian man with those physical characteristics, and when that happens, I’m not going to rule him out as a sex partner just because he’s Asian. On the other hand, if you tell me that my blind date for the evening is Chinese, I know up front that the strong probability is that I’m not going to be interested. That doesn’t mean he’s a bad person or shouldn’t have equal employment and educational opportunities. It just means he’s not my type, and his blood line mostly has something to do with it. By the way, there are plenty of white guys whom I’m not interested in either for the same reason. And, there are plenty of white guys who aren’t interested in me, because physically I’m not what they’re looking for. That’s life.

There are plenty of reasons for citizens of the United States to be ashamed of this country. One reason-as relates to this thread-is the horrific treatment of marginalized people. Black people for instance, continue to be discriminated against and are the targets of bigotry and racism.

As long as you’re not racist, then you have nothing to be ashamed of and secondly are you also ashamed of all racism? Or just when white people do it?

Most of the racism is a thing of the past so I really don’t buy into the “horrific treatment” BS. It’s not productive at all to dwell on the past. You’re not helping people of color by telling them over and over that they’re victims and that society owes them something for what happened a hundred years ago. People have equal rights before the law now, slavery and other discriminatory laws are long gone so I’m not exactly sure what you expect the government to do further.

Even if I’m wrong, just look at hate crimes overall! I mean, out of 6604 hate crimes! 107 hate crimes against Muslims is just nuthin. I mean only 1.6% of hate crimes total are against Muslims for being Muslim! That’s no big deal, right? I mean, sure, they could also have been targeted for their race, since only 30% of Muslims are white but still! That’s such a small percentage, right?

Oh, what? Muslims are only 0.8% of the U.S. population !? Oh shi-

I don’t think that this is something to be excessively concerned about, they get punished don’t they?

What do expect us to do? Shut up about the aspects of Islam that call for violence, totalitarianism and supremacism because some odd nutjob might randomly attack a Muslim? Well then I guess Richard Dawkins and other “militant atheists” are “Christianophobic” and should shut down their sites and retract all their books critical of Christianity because someone might attack Christians. Just so we’re clear, I’m atheist, I don’t believe in any of this, I just can’t go on with the lie that all religions are equally dangerous or whatever.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. -Deuteronomy 17:12

I specifically addressed this in my last post. In Christianity (excluding some obscure radical sects) the commandments in the Old Testament are understood as not binding anymore with Jesus’ more peaceful teachings superseding them. Even the most radical YEC believe this. You may disagree with this, you can insist that “no no this passage here says OT laws are valid”, but that’s how they’re understood. It’s how clergy understand it, it’s how lay men understand it. From the Pope and Patriarchs, to the priests, to the lay man there is virtually no call for the implementation of those laws as there is for Sharia in the Muslim world. They’re largely a non-issue. (And it’s a non-issue for Judaism too if you haven’t noticed due to the destruction of the temple.) This makes Islamic theology far more problematic than Christian theology. And if you’re serious about tackling the harm religions bring, you need to drop this infantile “all religions are equally bad” way of thinking.

It always boggles the mind how people will use a sign of mercy as a sign of evil. Jizya is considerably less evil than the options that Christians employed historically,

I don’t think you understand what it meant to be a dhimmi if you see it as a “sign of mercy”. It’s more like a protection racket combined with various discriminatory policies purposefully intended to show Islam’s dominance over other religions. It’s not that pleasant in theory and it’s way worse in practice. Are you the brand of “militant” anti-theist who is overly harsh on Christianity and soft on Islam? You know, like how Ophelia Benson said we shouldn’t be critical of Sharia law because Muslims are underprivileged in the west?

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.

Note that Muslims cannot embrace Christianity, another religion or become atheists. The penalty is death under Sharia.

We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.

Hmmm, I guess the equivalent of the 2nd amendment is only for Muslims.

We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

This is why people like Condell are more critical of Islam than Christianity, I mean you can continue to pretend that it’s all race-based, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even if Condell is a secret racist, your accusations are baseless because they’re not backed by anything. There are many many people who have no racial agenda at all and started being critical of Islam precisely because of these problematic aspects of the religion. If you think Condell is a racist right-winger, well what about Klingschor, a “progressive”? How about Howard Bloom that TJ hosts on his channel somtimes, a Democrat? Dawkins? He’s a liberal, but he does dislike Islam far more than Christianity. I guess they must all be secret racist right-wingers too.

and Christians continue to have state-funded churches using taxes – often without letting people opt out.

Which country? Definitely not in US due to the non-establishment clause in the constitution. I suppose you’re talking about some European countries, it is NOTHING like the dhimma.

Jizya is worse than the common alternatives now, but it’s not universally employed at all.

Jizya hasn’t really been collected for a long time, mostly due to western influence not to mention that Ataturk also abolished the last caliphate in 1924. It’s still part of Islamic law however, it’s never been abolished or reformed, and those that take Islam seriously know this, that’s why for example the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to bring back the jizya tax in Egypt, read:

According to some reports, some Christians were expected to pay 200-500 Egyptian pounds a day. That’s about 29-72$ a day, (an insane amount even for American income) and you want to compare to some imperfect but largely secular governments (with equal rights for all citizens under the law) that use taxpayer money to fund churches?

I specifically addressed this in my last post. In Christianity (excluding some obscure radical sects) the commandments in the Old Testament are understood as not binding anymore with Jesus’ more peaceful teachings superseding them

Understood by whom exactly? The yahoos who try to plaster the Ten Commandments all over the place?

Even the most radical YEC believe this

The fuck? I am dying to meet this person. Does he hide gold at the ends of rainbows and bring eggs at Easter too?

According to some reports, some Christians were expected to pay 200-500 Egyptian pounds a day.

Admittedly not scientific, but I did a quick Google using variations of “egypt”, “jizya” and “brotherhood” as search terms. The results were pretty telling.

The yahoos who try to plaster the Ten Commandments all over the place?

They try to plaster the Ten Commandments all over the place. They’re not calling for the implementation of a totalitarian system based on Leviticus or some of the other inhumane laws. What’s so hard to understand? (And no, the Ten Commandments aren’t considered part of those old laws.)

and secondly are you also ashamed of all racism? Or just when white people do it?

Learn what “racism” means: in the sense used here, where many people have some understanding of the matter, it refers to a social phenomenon, power plus ethnic prejudice, not prejudice alone. All prejudice is wrong, but that of those in powerful groups is far more harmful, because they have the ability to exercise it.

Most of the racism is a thing of the past so I really don’t buy into the “horrific treatment” BS. It’s not productive at all to dwell on the past. You’re not helping people of color by telling them over and over that they’re victims and that society owes them something for what happened a hundred years ago.

Jesus fucking wept, the depth of ignorance – or dishonesty – here is simply stunning. There are numerous studies showing that, for example, criminal prosecution and sentencing are racially biased – literally millions of African Americans are imprisoned and disenfranchised for non-violent drug offenses; and that a job application attached to a name likely to be that of an African American is likely to be less favourably treated. Republicans in many states are even now crafting laws to disenfranchise even more black people. By the way, has it even occurred to you that some of those you’re addressing with your idiocies might not be white?

From the Pope and Patriarchs, to the priests, to the lay man there is virtually no call for the implementation of those laws as there is for Sharia in the Muslim world.

More fuckwitted ignorance. Try googling “dominionist”. More broadly, churches throughout the predominantly Christian world are doing their utmost to impose their religious views concerning abortion and same-sex marriage on society – presumably this doesn’t affect you directly, so you either haven’t noticed or don’t give a shit.

Here’s a quote from Ibn Kathir

Who the fuck is Ibn Kathir, and on what grounds is he to be considered representative of Muslims?

This is why people like Condell are more critical of Islam than Christianity, I mean you can continue to pretend that it’s all race-based, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even if Condell is a secret racist, your accusations are baseless because they’re not backed by anything.

Oh I agree, Condell is not a secret racist. There’s nothing secret about supporting the racist party UKIP, or making favourable comments about the Nazi-led English Defence League.

Dawkins? He’s a liberal, but he does dislike Islam far more than Christianity. I guess they must all be secret racist right-wingers too.

More ignorance. Growing up in a racist society, as all of us have, it is practically impossible not to retain some racist attitudes. Dawkins certainly has, and not just in relation to Islam: referring to the pro-Israel or Zionist lobby in the USA as “the Jewish lobby”, as he does in TGD, is undoubtedly racist.

On jizya, as far as I can discover, it is not officially imposed anywhere today, so the correct comparison is historical – and for much of the time it was in operation, Muslims simply could not practice their religion at all in Christian countries. You cite the Washington Times – that tells us a good deal about you, because that rag, which seems to be the basis of all the other reports, is a far-right Moonie propaganda sheet. If the story has any basis in fact, it is simply a criminal protection racket in one village, since the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned by the Egyptian junta.

Danieln@ 87:
You lost me right out of the gate.
“Most of racism is a thing of the past”???!!!
You are deeeeeeeeply wrong. Racism is alive and well in the US. Your comments lead me to suspect your are not part of a marginalized racial group, however, you could be and are simply ignorant of the racism around you. That you do not think racism exists because you’ve taken a look at the landscape of the country and decided “nope, racism…pretty much gone” does not make it so.
Before we go further, do you understand the definition of racism provided by Nick Gotts @ 92?

The racist opinions of many political officials has a horrible impact on racial minorities. Policies such as “Stop and Frisk” disproportionately target Black and Hispanic Americans.
Much of the Right’s opposition to welfare is due to racism.
Racism is front and center in the debate on Immigration Reform.
Racism is on display on Fox News on the regular.
Racism permeats the justice system , as Nick mentioned.

The list could go on.
Odds are you have lived in a bubble of privilege where you have been unaffected by or ignorant of racism. It would behoove you to educate yourself on this subject before you say anything more.

Most of the racism is a thing of the past so I really don’t buy into the “horrific treatment” BS. It’s not productive at all to dwell on the past. You’re not helping people of color by telling them over and over that they’re victims and that society owes them something for what happened a hundred years ago.

Something tells me you’re white. “Not helping people of colour”? May I ask what you know about being a person of colour? You’re sounding awfully colonial to me, but what do I know, I’m just mixed race. Half Indian, Oglala Lakota. Y’know, one of the attitudes I encounter a lot is “wow, I thought Indians were dead” or “fuckin’ Indians ought to be dead.” Ever been on a rez? Ever been in one of the white towns bordering a rez? Post-racism my mixed up ass.

Nobody? It was said “There are plenty of reasons for citizens of the United States to be ashamed of this country.” I said “As long as you’re not racist, then you have nothing to be ashamed of”.

Learn what “racism” means: in the sense used here, where many people have some understanding of the matter, it refers to a social phenomenon, power plus ethnic prejudice, not prejudice alone. All prejudice is wrong, but that of those in powerful groups is far more harmful, because they have the ability to exercise it.

That distinction is baseless and sounds agenda-ridden. Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”

Secondly, non-white racists do have the ability to exercise it, it’s as simple as getting beaten up on the street for being white and as the FBI hate crimes list shows, cases like that do exist. Who cares if they have a job that places them in a position of authority or not? (not like everyone in those positions is white anyway, so even under this definition it’s technically possible)

Speaking of which, there are white supremacists who don’t even have a job, let alone a position of power. So are they racist or just “prejudiced?” How about the EDL which you claim are racist. Most of them are working class,

More fuckwitted ignorance. Try googling “dominionist”.

The only “fuckwitted ignorance” here is your inability to recognize that dominionists are an extremely tiny group that are not in any way representative of mainstream Christian theology.

Now contrast that with the 4 schools of Sunni Islam, none of which abrogate Sharia and all of which demand the institutionalized discrimination of non-Muslims as dhimmis.

More broadly, churches throughout the predominantly Christian world are doing their utmost to impose their religious views concerning abortion and same-sex marriage on society – presumably this doesn’t affect you directly, so you either haven’t noticed or don’t give a shit.

Actually I do notice, and I do care, but that doesn’t mean they want Leviticus law. Being opposed to gay marriage is not the same as wanting to kill them. And generally speaking, it’s Muslim countries that kill gays, not Christian ones. (And before you go off on your strawman, read again, “generally speaking”) If you want to argue both religions are equally bad the facts just aren’t on your side.

Who the fuck is Ibn Kathir, and on what grounds is he to be considered representative of Muslims?

Oh, only one of the most influential Muslim scholars who wrote one of the most influential exegesis of the Quran (Tafsir Ibn Kathir). He is representative of ISLAM, not Muslims. There’s a difference between the religion and the people who belong or claim to belong to the religion.

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary on the Qur’an named Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur’an, in explanation. Tafsir ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world, and among Muslims in the Western world is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu’ran today.

Oh I agree, Condell is not a secret racist. There’s nothing secret about supporting the racist party UKIP, or making favourable comments about the Nazi-led English Defence League.

UKIP is a nationalist anti-EU party, not a racist one. His main reason for supporting UKIP is wanting out of the EU.

EDL has many racists and thugs, but they’re not ALL racists and the message of the EDL isn’t racist either because it doesn’t mention the race. That’s just a generalization based on a refusal to accept that people can dislike Islam without being racist.

If the story has any basis in fact, it is simply a criminal protection racket in one village, since the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned by the Egyptian junta.

You greatly dismiss the widespread persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. It is far worse than anything any minority faces in the west (including Muslims). It’s not just the odd Muslim killing or beating a Christian, but gangs who attack churches, beat up Christians or kill Christians, not to mention that they don’t have equal rights before the law. (Muslim Brotherhood is gone for now, out of power, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other pro-Sharia forces at work in Egypt)

People ought to like what you think they should like, rather than what they actually do like.

That’s not at all what my position is. In fact, you’re the one making this about me, and I don’t care to discuss this with someone who does that instead of engaging my actual arguments. And all you’re doing, anyway, is reiterating “that’s all there is to it” instead of supporting or analyzing that assertion in any way.

You’re also posing your own preferences as something partially associated with race, but not explicitly for a particular race, like the guy in the OP. Although preference of traits found more often in one race than another is still potentially problematic (because those preferences can still come from cultural norms constructed to value whiteness), it’s not quite the same as preference for actual racial categories and not what my arguments (such as “it’s not a taste that could have developed on its own or outside a particular social context”) were directed at.

Why is it any of your damn business what someone else finds attractive?

I’ve been pretty clear about why*, so this question is just more evidence that you’re not worth engaging further.

…………
*See the last 2 sentences of 57, the 2nd to last sentence of 82, and the first 3 paragraphs of 85.

That distinction is baseless and sounds agenda-ridden. Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”

Oh gawd. A dictionary racist. You really should answer what people actually say to you. Like, for instance, the point made about the consequences of racism+power-differential. We in the real world call this concept “honesty.” You should try it.

As to your little EDL-defending rant, please watch this and take time to use some of the material provided below the video. It might jog you out of that comfortable little bubble you’re living in.

You have useful advice for unicorns too? Everyone is racist to some degree – the question is a matter of how much so.

Most of the racism is a thing of the past

Bullshit.

I don’t think you understand what it meant to be a dhimmi if you see it as a “sign of mercy”. It’s more like a protection racket combined with various discriminatory policies purposefully intended to show Islam’s dominance over other religions.

Do you know what Christians did to Muslims in Christian majority areas? In comparison, “Pay a tax and move on with your life” is pretty fucking great, because the ‘merciful’ Christian choices were “Convert or Exile”. It’s not great compared to say, Ming, but white people who want to talk about Muslims as uniquely evil don’t get to fault folks for failing to be as religiously tolerant as the Ming.

There’s a reason Jews tended to emigrate to Islamic areas for long periods of the Diaspora – it’s not until the establishment of Israel that Jewish/Islamic strife really amped up. Muslims were anti-semitic as well, but they were a damn sight better than Christians were.

e. Are you the brand of “militant” anti-theist who is overly harsh on Christianity and soft on Islam?

I wouldn’t say I’m militant, because I’m not part of a military or paramilitary organization. And you’re damn right I’m going to be more harsh on Christianity. Queer people in the west have far more to fear from Christianity than from immigrant Muslims who have difficulty attaining enough political power to practice in peace, let alone oppress us.

You know, like how Ophelia Benson said we shouldn’t be critical of Sharia law because Muslims are underprivileged in the west?

I find that very unlikely, because a grand total of nobody says “Don’t be critical of Sharia law”. It’s “Be proportionately critical of Sharia Law” – if it isn’t germane to the overarching discussion (IE we’re discussing rights for say, women in islamic countries where it’s in force) it’s just a giant racist distraction.

Which country? Definitely not in US due to the non-establishment clause in the constitution. I suppose you’re talking about some European countries, it is NOTHING like the dhimma.

Why? Because you say so? It’s an involuntary tax levelled in promotion of the established state religion.

Note that Muslims cannot embrace Christianity, another religion or become atheists. The penalty is death under Sharia.

And that’s worse than their european contemporaries in what way? Notwithstanding that this is a very, very often unenforced aspect of Sharia.

but it sounds like a conspiracy theory

Yeah, it’s not like he’s part of a fucking nativist party or anything, racism is totes unlikely. Where do you get your drugs?

Dawkins? He’s a liberal, but he does dislike Islam far more than Christianity. I guess they must all be secret racist right-wingers too.

Dawkins is the only one I know out of hand that list – he’s a particularly racist left winger on the matter. I don’t know why you’re having a hard time with this.

Jizya hasn’t really been collected for a long time, mostly due to western influence

You’re going to assert this, when huge numbers of western countries still collect church taxes? Are you high?

It’s still part of Islamic law however, it’s never been abolished or reformed, and those that take Islam seriously know this,

Yeah, it’s like there’s nobody who can alter the canon because it’s a fucking religion. I don’t give a shit what’s in the canon; I’m not in their fucking religion, it’s none of my god damned concern. I care what people actually do. You have a single isolated example that islamic egyptians denied. Color me fucking unimpressed. You’re also ignoring that there is a lot of racism going on between egyptians and copts – some of it uses religion as a vector, yes, but that’s not some unique islamic invention. You’re kind of displaying it right now, after all.

ACtually, some dictionaries have the useful definition as well, which makes this even more fucking stupid.

Incidental note, I have yet to meet a white person who uses the word ‘dhimmi’ and is not a titanic asshole. I’d like to see someone break the pattern at some point, but today is apparently not that day.

And I’m sure it would be quite an argument, if you actually made one to support this.

Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”

Well, you are a white dude, so you’d know the fucking definition, wouldn’t you? Or more accurately, you’d copypasta it (without citation) in place of actually thinking. Let’s toss in another one just for fun (from the same source): “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”

Speaking of which, there are white supremacists who don’t even have a job, let alone a position of power. So are they racist or just “prejudiced?” How about the EDL which you claim are racist. Most of them are working class,

It’s almost as if you’re brand-spanking-new to the subject. Or you’re a dishonest shitstain, who has no interest in getting past the simplest fucking concepts. How about you try answering it yourself: do you think it’s possible for working-class people to be racist? What exactly do you think* everyone else here is claiming?

*Okay. Maybe the problem is that you don’t think. I shouldn’t make assumptions.

Do you know what Christians did to Muslims in Christian majority areas? In comparison, “Pay a tax and move on with your life” is pretty fucking great”

Excuse me? I think it was a bit more than “move on with your life” as I’ve shown you in my previous post. It was a tax + institutionalized discrimination. Are you trolling me? Your post could have been written by far leftist poe. Dawkins racist? LOL?

It is actually a sin to murder an unbeliever in Christianity regardless of how poor of a job Christians do about it, besides Christianity has reformed, it couldn’t be any clearer. It’s not however a sin in Islam to make unbelievers into dhimmis and kill them if they refuse both dhimma and conversion to Islam. It’s mandated. That has never been reformed and genuine reformers in the Islamic world are often killed and viewed as apostates. Don’t expect a reform too soon.

How about you try answering it yourself: do you think it’s possible for working-class people to be racist?

There’s a reason I asked, you people are the ones claiming it ain’t “really racism” unless it’s prejudice+power.

Well I know there are plenty of white supremacists who either don’t have a job or work menial jobs that doesn’t place them in any position of authority. So are they racist or just “prejudiced”? It’s a fair question, “shitstain”.

Excuse me? I think it was a bit more than “move on with your life” as I’ve shown you in my previous post. It was a tax + institutionalized discrimination. Are you trolling me? Your post could have been written by far leftist poe. Dawkins racist? LOL?

This? An argument? No? LOL? Tee-hee?

It is actually a sin to murder an unbeliever in Christianity regardless of how poor of a job Christians do about it, besides Christianity has reformed, it couldn’t be any clearer.

That has never been reformed and genuine reformers in the Islamic world are often killed and viewed as apostates.

There haven’t been any Christian schisms and murders of heretics, no sir. Not since it was “reformed” from being Judaism, which I guess means Jews today want Leviticus-style theocracies all over the place. Who knew?

I’ll quote it again: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

There were several others which are pretty similar: a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

You tell me how this is “agenda-ridden”? It’s as objective as it gets.

There haven’t been any Christian schisms and murders of heretics, no sir. Not since it was “reformed” from being Judaism, which I guess means Jews today want Leviticus-style theocracies all over the place. Who knew?

Okay, I can see that you’re not in the mood for any kind of discussion, you just want to bolster your agenda and call it “freethought”.

Seriously? I “evangelize”? FYI, I’m an atheist and I deny the Holy Spirit. I hope that makes my stance clear.

There’s a reason I asked, you people are the ones claiming it ain’t “really racism” unless it’s prejudice+power.

There’s being empowered one way (e.g., being white), and there’s being empowered other ways (e.g., being employed). They don’t all have to happen together, so there’s no fucking contradiction there.

Well I know there are plenty of white supremacists who either don’t have a job or work menial jobs that doesn’t place them in any position of authority. So are they racist or just “prejudiced”? It’s a fair question, “shitstain”.

Unemployed white supremacists are racists. The funny thing is how you think this is a hard question meant to stump anti-racists, when it’s as trivial as it fucking gets.

Like I said: these are basic concepts, which even someone who’s utterly ignorant but means well could figure out on their own. That’s why you’re so obviously a racist shitbag, not just someone who doesn’t know any better. No sympathy from me.

You tell me how this is “agenda-ridden”? It’s as objective as it gets.

You first, sweetie pie. Tell us how the “prejudice + power(-differential) = racism” definition is agenda-ridden. (Bonus points for explaining how it’s “baseless.”) After all, you were the first to make that claim.

Well, you asserted it in your previous post. I am aware that some discrimination went along with it, but that’s because I’m not a fucking ignoramus – you didn’t touch on how it was used as the basis for disdain, or how some (By no means all) countries would place further strictures. Nor did you discuss how dhimmi were not placed under strictures the majority were as regards to heavily Islamic countries, such as not having to pay Zakkat taxes.

None of which fucking matters when the comparison point is “Conversion or exile”, you colossal fucking asshole.

It is actually a sin to murder an unbeliever in Christianity

No, it isn’t. The only thing that makes murder a sin within the canon is the ten commandments – which makes it a sin to kill jewish people. I don’t care about canon, fortunately, but you only seem to when it’s islamic canon.

It’s not however a sin in Islam to make unbelievers into dhimmis and kill them if they refuse both dhimma and conversion to Islam.

Actually, exile was the usual choice.

Dawkins racist?

All the time, and twice on sundays. The dude makes it very clear that teh muslin immigrants in his country are uniquely horribad.

That has never been reformed

Except for all the countries htat don’t do that, which is most (if not all) of them. This is fucking asinine – Christians can get away with just behaving decently, but muslims have to rewrite their more merciful canon for it to count? Can you be more obvious in your double standards here?

You tell me how this is “agenda-ridden”? It’s as objective as it gets.

In the sense that “Objective” means “Useful for white people”, sure. It makes conversations about racist actions into a giant fucking shell game where we have to be mindreaders or be dealing with the Klan or Nazis to make any headways.

Well I know there are plenty of white supremacists who either don’t have a job or work menial jobs that doesn’t place them in any position of authority. So are they racist or just “prejudiced”? It’s a fair question, “shitstain”.

White supremacism is actually given serious truck in our society, provided one uses dog whistles. It doesn’t matter if a given white supremacist has power, because the ideology does.

A. Noyd, No. 97, first, I very carefully phrased my previous statement about my preferences in order to make a point, which obviously whooshed over your head, so I will now make it explicitly: I am personally attracted to broad shoulders, upper body strength, rugged faces and hairy chests, none of which are typically found in persons of Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese descent. Sometimes they are, but not often. Now, it’s OK for me to say, “I like muscular guys with hairy chests,” but it’s not OK for me to say, “I don’t like Japanese guys.” Why? What difference does it make whether I’m phrasing my preferences in terms of the physical characteristics themselves, or in terms of races that are or are not more likely to have guys that I like? Liking certain physical characteristics may explain __why__ I’m generally not attracted to Japanese males, but it doesn’t change the main fact that in general, I’m not attracted to Japanese males.

It’s true that unlike the original commenter I won’t flatly rule out dating someone who is Japanese — show me a Japanese guy who looks like Vin Diesel and we can talk — but I’m also not going to waste my time going where Japanese males congregate when I know from experience that I’m more likely to find what I’m looking for in places where certain types of white guys congregate.

And yes, I get your argument — these preferences are the result of privilege — and even if true, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to dating and marriage. If you haven’t noticed, people of all races and socioeconomic conditions seek to marry up, or at least not marry down. If we woke up tomorrow to find that black women were now the people of privilege; they’d do the same thing. It’s basic game theory. Everyone wants to do the best for themselves and their children that they can, given what they have to work with. I have zero interest in raising children, but if I did, why wouldn’t I want to give them every possible advantage, including a partner with maximum gifts and talents? Since survival is of the fittest, I would want my children to have every head start I can give them. To the extent you think I should do something different, your argument is with evolution.

On the question of which religion is worse, Islam or Christianity, can we agree that all religion is superstition but that some superstition is more harmful than others? And that which is more harmful today may not be what is more harmful tomorrow?

During the Middle Ages, I would have said that Christianity posed a greater threat than Islam. I don’t think that’s true in 2013. At this point, Christianity is fat and lazy, and Islam is lean and hungry. We know how fights of that type typically go down.

During the Middle Ages, I would have said that Christianity posed a greater threat than Islam. I don’t think that’s true in 2013. At this point, Christianity is fat and lazy, and Islam is lean and hungry. We know how fights of that type typically go down.

Remind me,w hich side was reduced to rubble in the Iraq/USA War?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

What difference does it make whether I’m phrasing my preferences in terms of the physical characteristics themselves, or in terms of races that are or are not more likely to have guys that I like?

You said yourself that it isn’t even accurate to put it in terms of race. There are Japanese people with those physical characteristics. That’s a difference that it makes.

If you haven’t noticed, people of all races and socioeconomic conditions seek to marry up, or at least not marry down. If we woke up tomorrow to find that black women were now the people of privilege; they’d do the same thing. It’s basic game theory.

No, people don’t all put class before everything else. For example, sometimes they actually prioritize falling in love with a person. Believe it or not.

Everyone wants to do the best for themselves and their children that they can, given what they have to work with. I have zero interest in raising children, but if I did, why wouldn’t I want to give them every possible advantage, including a partner with maximum gifts and talents?

Because that wasn’t what was on your mind when you decided to marry the person? Because you actually love them, regardless of their economic status or how you can rationalize it with game theory of all fucking things?

Since survival is of the fittest, I would want my children to have every head start I can give them. To the extent you think I should do something different, your argument is with evolution.

Evolution doesn’t prescribe behaviors. It is not a moral code. We don’t need to “obey” it (or your concept of survival of the fittest, which probably only bears a vague resemblance). Same with game theory. Or was it evolution? Or what’s the argument supposed to be again? What’s justifying what, and how?

I very carefully phrased my previous statement about my preferences in order to make a point, which obviously whooshed over your head

No, I got that you “very carefully phrased” it to avoid the thrust of my argument. I’m objecting to the dishonesty. I’m done with you, your dishonest, and your revolting, uncritical justifications of the racist status quo (especially now that it’s devolved into evo psych bullshit).

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

@danieln
“You know, like how Ophelia Benson said we shouldn’t be critical of Sharia law because Muslims are underprivileged in the west?”

Not sure where you got that from.. To my knowledge, Ophelia Benson has never said anything of the sort. She is very much opposed to Sharia law. Maybe you should check your sources before making such claims?

You said yourself that it isn’t even accurate to put it in terms of race. There are Japanese people with those physical characteristics. That’s a difference that it makes.

It’s interesting, too, how some of the characteristics abewoelk named are at least partially cosmetic (upper body strength, ruggedness, hairiness) rather than wholly innate. One of the people I follow on Tumblr is a gay dude with a thing for really muscular guys and he reblogs lots of body-builder pics. There are plenty of rugged-faced, bulgy-chested E. Asian dudes in the mix. (Though, because they’re body-builders, usually only the Sikh fellows are hairy, and everyone else is shaved or waxed.) Racism encourages us to overlook the effect of taking (or not taking) cosmetic measures to live up to attractiveness standards and tells us we should attribute success or failure to racial identity instead.

Did survival of the fittest stop being true when we went from the 19th to the 20th to the 21st century, and somehow I missed it? As I understand your egalitarian leanings, you want to tear down what you perceive as artificial barriers that keep some people from being fit, which is fine. I can even agree with that to a certain extent. But after all of those barriers are torn down, whoever ends up on the “fit” list is going to be most likely to survive, and wishing that fact were different is unlike wishing any other fact were different.

@123, I haven’t said a word that endorses evolutionary psychology. Survival of the fittest is a matter of physical biology, not evolutionary psychology. The fact that humans instinctively understand it, and partner accordingly, does not change that biological fact.

@ Crip Dyke, No. 128, if stereotype X is true of group Y let’s say 80% of the time (and most stereotypes are true often enough or they never would have become stereotypes in the first place), that means that if I assume it to be true of a particular member of group Y, I’m going to be right 80% of the time, which isn’t a bad average.

I then need to take the next step and determine if it is in fact true of that particular individual. But in game theory, there are worse strategies than making an initial assumption that’s going to be true 80% of the time.

At Rutee, No. 120, do not confuse current western technological superiority (which may or may not continue indefinitely), with a long term winning strategy. Christianity is fat and lazy; Islam is lean and hungry, and over time I don’t like those odds.

Which is way saying, “I hate people who like Evita” is accurate whereas saying, “I hate fags” is not.

You could, of course, be honest and say that you are **less likely** to like persons of group X because you don’t like characteristic Y which is overrepresented in group X, but that would require actual accuracy, not stereotyping, so you are against saying that.

Because game theory says you shouldn’t make accurate statements, especially when your inaccurate ones have such a delightful risk of replicating oppression!

…or something.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

I hate this “survival of the fittest” bullshit. The great white shark is helpless against mountain goats. A cheetah’s speed is useless tube worms. And so on. Also, the survival tactics of social creatures like humans would not work for scorpions and vise versa. It is what ever works in a given environment and against which competitors.

@CripDyke 133, I haven’t said I don’t like the Japanese, what I said is that I tend not to be sexually attracted to them, which is not quite the same thing. I certainly don’t think my subjective sexual tastes should be a basis for denying them equality in any other context.

@137, my point is that those religions that were crushed by Christianity were not crushed recently; that happened at a time when Christianity was the lean and hungry one.

In the United States, Christianity’s moon has been waning for quite some time. They weren’t able to ban abortion when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. They haven’t been able to stop gay marriage. They have a few local successes from time to time, but they show every sign and symptom of an ideology that is on the way out. Not on the way out fast enough to suit me, granted, but that’s the general trend.

And even if we assume a worst-case scenario, under which the Christian dominionists actually were to achieve political power, the things they would do to women and gays are nothing compared to what happens to women and gays under sharia law. Put to a choice, I’d far rather live in Alabama than Saudi Arabia. For that matter, I’d far rather live in the Alabama of 100 years ago than the Saudi Arabia of today. I don’t see this one as even close.

@137, my point is that those religions that were crushed by Christianity were not crushed recently; that happened at a time when Christianity was the lean and hungry one.

This is in “Not even wrong” territory.

In the United States, Christianity’s moon has been waning for quite some time. They weren’t able to ban abortion when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. They haven’t been able to stop gay marriage. They have a few local successes from time to time, but they show every sign and symptom of an ideology that is on the way out. Not on the way out fast enough to suit me, granted, but that’s the general trend.

Many christians did support the pro choice side. And still do. It has been the RCC and fundamentalist protestants who rallied against it. They are and remain a radical minority. But they are tireless and a few are willing to use violence to achieve their ends. And because of their networking and fanaticism, right wing politician have been willing to make use of this crowd.

Oh, wait, you are making the argument that Islam is about to defeat christiandom.

And even if we assume a worst-case scenario, under which the Christian dominionists actually were to achieve political power, the things they would do to women and gays are nothing compared to what happens to women and gays under sharia law. Put to a choice, I’d far rather live in Alabama than Saudi Arabia. For that matter, I’d far rather live in the Alabama of 100 years ago than the Saudi Arabia of today. I don’t see this one as even close.

Sorry. Just because one place might be arguably worse then an other does not mean that I want to give any support to the first. This oppression olympics is utter bullshit. You are trying to justify why a person like me, a queer woman, would even want to grant support to my oppressors.

Also, read what the christian dominionist are saying. They want to put people like me to death.

For that matter, I’d far rather live in the Alabama of 100 years ago than the Saudi Arabia of today. I don’t see this one as even close.

Spoken like a white person. [TW for racism and lynching descriptions.] I couldn’t find one exactly 100 years ago, but there are plenty more recent. This racism has been defended using Christianity and the Bible. Do you know there are still kids being taught that dark skin is a curse from God to this day?

People use their religion to excuse terrible things. That they do this does not justify making absurdly broad statements in which one religion is “leaner and hungrier” than another because the “fat and lazy” religion’s overt aggression against one or two specific groups doesn’t receive as much press coverage.

People who depend on stereotypes as brain fuel do not like thinking. Why think when you can just stuff your brain with unexamined trash, which has the benefit of allowing them to rationalize a wide range of asshole behaviour.

Did the Ottoman Empire fall because christiandom was lean and hungry was islam was fat and lazy. If so, why did Austria-Hungary fall, given Vienna’s role as the defender of christians against the islamic horde.

@137, my point is that those religions that were crushed by Christianity were not crushed recently; that happened at a time when Christianity was the lean and hungry one.

Let’s get this straight: do you not know if contemporary religions are being crushed by Christianity, or do you know that no religions are being crushed?

Because I can think of plenty of current examples of Christians trampling on other religious groups. Lots and lots and lots. That’s before we even start counting atheists, agnostics, etc.

And the “lean and hungry” metaphors aren’t helping anything. That’s referring to the cause of Christianity being a certain way, or how Christians act because of the way their churches are, or because of the way the culture is, or what? Are they not metaphors at all — should I read it literally? Maybe it’s just a bunch of garbage that we should all forget in 10 minutes?

secondly are you also ashamed of all racism? Or just when white people do it?

I see daniel is trying to get us to break out the world’s tiniest violins for the racial adversity suffered by Teh White Peoples.

Most of the racism is a thing of the past so I really don’t buy into the “horrific treatment” BS.

It’s so cute when people living up their own ass tell us how the world REALLY works.

You’re not helping people of color by telling them over and over that they’re victims and that society owes them something for what happened a hundred years ago.

Indeed. We should completely ignore that! Because True Equality is intentionally ignoring how people were fucked over and pretending that their the lack of comparable fuck-overs in the present means that everything is hunky-dory! Everyone else is reverse racists! Also: BOOTSTRAPS!

I don’t think that this is something to be excessively concerned about, they get punished don’t they?

The point was that you blithely dismissed the idea that Muslims suffered many hate crimes. They are .8% of the population yet they are 8% of the people targeted for religious hate crimes. That’s nothing for a reasonable person to scoff at. But you did. Either you are stupid or an asshole. Or both. Prove me wrong.

I just can’t go on with the lie that all religions are equally dangerous or whatever.

No, but you must understand that people consistently privilege Christianity and over stigmatize Islam when making these threat assessments. Because they are Western atheists, regularly rubbing arms with Christians, and basing their knowledge of Muslims almost exclusively on second and third-hand information.

I specifically addressed this in my last post. In Christianity (excluding some obscure radical sects) the commandments in the Old Testament are understood as not binding anymore with Jesus’ more peaceful teachings superseding them…You may disagree with this, you can insist that “no no this passage here says OT laws are valid”, but that’s how they’re understood.

You are a complete and utter blinkered ignoramus if you actually believe this. If you are actually an atheist who spent any amount of time at all actually talking with Christians and learning about Christianity, you would fucking know that they argue out of both sides of their mouth on this one. Very few sects completely abolish OT law! Yes, most sects think that Jesus’s teaching trump SOME of them. And they are very Cafeteria Christian-y about which ones they decide were made archaic. But very fucking few think that all OT laws are completely null and void. Srsly , it’s not as simple as you think. Again, man with his head up his own ass telling us what reality really looks like.

This is why people like Condell are more critical of Islam than Christianity, I mean you can continue to pretend that it’s all race-based, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory….There are many many people who have no racial agenda at all and started being critical of Islam precisely because of these problematic aspects of the religion.

I’m sorry, but citation needed. There is a massive amount of scaremongering, othering, and xenophobia involved in the criticism of Islam. Do you know how we know? Because a lot of the criticism of Islam hinges upon baldly declaring that it is worse than Christianity. Just like you are doing now. Do you know why that sets off alarm bells for us everytime? Because every single fucking time, the examples of extraordinary evils also happens to be shit that really isn’t that much different or worse from shit that Christians also do are that is also part of Christian doctrine. Every single fucking time. Racism isn’t a conspiracy. Seeing people converge on the same double standards and talking points and noting that isn’t a conspiracy theory.

They try to plaster the Ten Commandments all over the place. They’re not calling for the implementation of a totalitarian system based on Leviticus or some of the other inhumane laws.

Oh look, our old friend hyperskepticism! They just want the Ten Commandments unconstitutionally displayed in courtrooms on the basis of aesthetics alone, I’m sure!

(And no, the Ten Commandments aren’t considered part of those old laws.)

What the fuck are you smoking?

Did you actually read the article you told us to fucking read?

The NCT believes that the version of law in the Old Covenant era was the Mosaic Law, which included the Ten Commandments.

Yes, the one (of two) type of theologies that is consistent with what you believe is true of ALL Christianity still believes that The Ten Commandments are part of the old law.

Head. Up. Your. Ass.

That distinction is baseless and sounds agenda-ridden. Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”

Conveniently ignoring definitions 2 and 3 ? Because the first definition is obviously the only definition? LEARN TO DICTIONARY. Or learn to English. Either one.

The only “fuckwitted ignorance” here is your inability to recognize that dominionists are an extremely tiny group that are not in any way representative of mainstream Christian theology.

The fucking irony .

Oh, only one of the most influential Muslim scholars who wrote one of the most influential exegesis of the Quran (Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

So we are supposed to be afraid of Islam and Muslims on the basis of something someone said 700 years ago…why? You realize that your case against Islam is based on assuming that all are devoted literalists and fanatics in regards to most brutal passages? And that your case in defense of Christianity is based on handwaving away the most brutal passages? Why do you assume that Christians are the only ones who get to use logical conclusions to pick and choose? Why do you assume that Muslims are the only one who believe and follow every single word of their abhorrent and backwards holy text?

EDL isn’t racist either because it doesn’t mention the race.

lulzy.
In other words: “Fuckin dog whistles, how do they work!?”

It is actually a sin to murder an unbeliever in Christianity regardless of how poor of a job Christians do about it,

Citation needed, Mr. Every Christian Believes The Old Testament Is Irrelevant.

Danieln:
I forgot to point out that I am a person of color. Also, there are many reasons not related to race that are cause to be ashamed of the US. I do not mention them bc that would be an off topic discussion. Suffice it to say, your blind patriotism and faith in the greatness of this country needs a reality check.

Yeah, that’s a good one. Ophelia going soft on Sharia. I await the inevitable spluttering and presentation of quotes that say the opposite of “We shouldn’t be critical of Sharia,” accompanied no doubt by Danieln’s hope that we’re too lazy to actually read the source–after all, HE is that lazy, why shouldn’t everyone else be?

@137, my point is that those religions that were crushed by Christianity were not crushed recently; that happened at a time when Christianity was the lean and hungry one.

You’re a fucking idiot.

And even if we assume a worst-case scenario, under which the Christian dominionists actually were to achieve political power, the things they would do to women and gays are nothing compared to what happens to women and gays under sharia law. Put to a choice, I’d far rather live in Alabama than Saudi Arabia. For that matter, I’d far rather live in the Alabama of 100 years ago than the Saudi Arabia of today. I don’t see this one as even close.

Reminder: Muslim majority countries that follow Sharia to a degree have elected women to lead them, which the US *still* can’t do. Iran pays for gender reassignment surgery (PRovided you swear to be an otherwise heteronormative member of the gender): The USA still beats trans people to death.

Honkey McStraighterson III’s opinion on how we should feel about Dominionists is less than fucking worthless.

These types are always looking for an excuse to dismiss or bash feminism, and very often they use the oppression of women in Islamic countries, ironically, to do it.
But in order to do it, they need to really stretch the truth or just flat out lie and hope no one actually does any research.

In the United States, Christianity’s moon has been waning for quite some time. They weren’t able to ban abortion when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

Um…they (Christians) have always controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. What do you think Obama’s religion is anyway? And that of the vast majority of reps and senators. It’s not Islam.

It says a lot about you that you’re comfortable using that kind of language. What’s even more disturbing is that none of these social justice warriors who supposedly condemn racism have called you out, yet desperately try to find racism in anything Pat Condell says.

You’re a joke.

Now, anteprepro wants a “citation” that killing is forbidden in mainstream Christianity. I mean, shit, get a clue, for example in Catholicism (a mainstream denomination, largest one in fact):

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

But somehow you think they want they want to do away with democracy, implement levitical law and stone homosexuals or something, even though they’re barely comfortable with sanctioning the execution murderers.

Now you may dismiss that as “propaganda” or “dog whistles”, or just plain not agree with it, but that is what they teach. Today. It’s what the priests teach and it’s likely what your average Catholic church goer is going to hear. Regardless of how it behaved in the past.

Your attempts to establish a moral equivalence between the harms of Christianity and Islam just demonstrates how poisoned your mind is by political correctness.

Do you even know what moral equivalence means? Moral equivalence is saying that the following are all equally morally repugnant: killing for financial gain and killing for revenge and killing in self-defense because your enemy has advantages in size and training and it would take a serious weapon to dissuade the person and you didn’t have a machete to hand so used the disproportionate force of shooting the person with a .45.

Practical equivalence is saying that whatever your motive, the harm of killing the person is precisely equal.

Moral equivalence is the refusal to distinguish in moral import the Catholic Church fostering genocidal crusades and genocidal colonization with Islamic crimes of I-don’t-know-what because I am not muslim and don’t keep up with the history of Islam, that wouldn’t really be about the harms or about the current practices (which, btw, really didn’t change until after WW1 and didn’t decisively break with the past until post-WW2 and still have work to do in ending pro-genocide policies in the US, Australia, Canada, and many other places where the rulers of the nation are almost universally Christian).

Practical equivalence is the refusal to count the bodies, saying that the estimate of each being equally harmful is good enough.

Do you really have a problem with the moral equivalence of two religions that have each engaged in violent colonization and conversion-under-threat-of-death? What is controversial about drawing the moral equivalence between the two?

If you want to talk about which system has more bodies to its name more recently, let’s add up 20th century bodies and see who comes off worse. If you want to only count bodies since sep 10th, 2001, I find your time scale to be somewhat biased. If you want to count the last 6 months, I find your timescale useless.

So, is your complaint with moral equivalence or with practical eqivalence, and what boundaries do you have to draw around timescales and harms considered to get Christianity to come out ahead?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

Now, it’s OK for me to say, “I like muscular guys with hairy chests,” but it’s not OK for me to say, “I don’t like Japanese guys.” Why? What difference does it make whether I’m phrasing my preferences in terms of the physical characteristics themselves, or in terms of races that are or are not more likely to have guys that I like? Liking certain physical characteristics may explain __why__ I’m generally not attracted to Japanese males, but it doesn’t change the main fact that in general, I’m not attracted to Japanese males.

from your #117.

You’re asking what difference it makes when you phrase things one way rather than another. I’m telling you. you seem to already know this, in fact, from your careful phrasing earlier in this thread in #86.

It is surreal that in your #137 you say:

I haven’t said I don’t like the Japanese, what I said is that I tend not to be sexually attracted to them, which is not quite the same thing. I certainly don’t think my subjective sexual tastes should be a basis for denying them equality in any other context.

I know what you said and what you didn’t. And what you said included questioning why an accurate statement of tendency should be preferred to an inaccurate statement of stereotype.

I’m not saying be attracted to people to whom you are not attracted: I’m queer fFs.

I’m saying that neither convenience nor game theory is an excuse for stereotyping. You are free to embrace stereotyping, and I’m free to consider that a jerkwater move.

So do you have anything else intelligent to present, or are you going to just misrepresent the subject of the conversation and the nature of my objection a little bit more?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

@danieln
What does ‘political correctness’ mean in this sentence?:
“Your attempts to establish a moral equivalence between the harms of Christianity and Islam just demonstrates how poisoned your mind is by political correctness”?

It says a lot about you that you’re comfortable using that kind of language

It says that I’m tired of white, straight, cis, neurotypical, able-bodied men of middle class thinking they have a fucking clue what oppression is like, or what to do about it, when they’re contradicting those of us who deal with this bullshit on a day to day basis.

What’s even more disturbing is that none of these social justice warriors who supposedly condemn racism have called you out, yet desperately try to find racism in anything Pat Condell says.

What a fucking shock that a white man doesn’t understand racism. What a surprise that you think you suddenly are no longer the privileged race because I’m not going out of my way to suck white cock.

fyi: Racism = the ability to further systematic marginalization based on race. The number of countries that have systematic marginalization of white people is vanishingly small, perhaps 0. Almost nothing that happens to a white person who is coded as white* in the USA is racist, because there is absolutely no systematic marginalization of white people – the exceptions lie in where we have groups who’s whiteness is still occasionally contested (Such as slavic peoples or the Irish), and that requires distinguishing the groups from being properly ‘white’.

Okay, you say that white people have it easier, fine, that doesn’t excuse your use of a racial slur and your rhetoric is extremely inflammatory, divisive and doesn’t help to foster any sort of harmony.

Neither does it help to get heterosexuals to support gay marriage. For the record, I am for gay marriage, but others aren’t. You’re not exactly going to win their hearts with that attitude, calling them “heteros” and accusing them of being too “privileged” (ah the favorite word on the left). That is nothing but a sure way to get on people’s nerves.

Okay, you say that white people have it easier, fine, that doesn’t excuse your use of a racial slur and your rhetoric is extremely inflammatory, divisive and doesn’t help to foster any sort of harmony.

Speaking of which, there are white supremacists who don’t even have a job, let alone a position of power. So are they racist or just “prejudiced?” How about the EDL which you claim are racist. Most of them are working class,

Try actually learning something for a change, danieln. A person can have power in one respect – by being a member of a privileged group – and not in another. As for “the EDL which you claim is racist”, only a racist scumbag like you or Pat Condell would deny that a movement led by a long-time Nazi (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson), and stuffed with neo-Nazis and perpetrators of racist assaults is racist. UKIP is little more subtle, but its founder considers it racist; its MEP until a few days ago, Godfrey Bloom, belongs to the same grouping of far-right parties (the self-styled “European Alliance for Freedom”) as Marine Le Pen of the French Front National and Philip Claeys of the Belgian Vlaams Belang – Nigel Farage had no objection to this, the whip was withdrawn from Bloom for an assault on a journalist and embarrassing Farage by calling female party members “sluts”; while the party itself belongs to “Europe of Freedom and Democracy” alongside the openly racist Lega Nord of Italy, the hardline Catholic Nationalist Party of Poland, the semi-theocratic Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) of Greece, and the Slovak National Party, which focuses on hating Roma and Hungarians. That neither you nor Condell actually give a shit about the rights of women or LGBT people is clear from these associations, and from UKIP’s own vile record of bigotry on these issues as well as racism.

It says a lot about you that you’re comfortable using that kind of language. What’s even more disturbing is that none of these social justice warriors who supposedly condemn racism have called you out, yet desperately try to find racism in anything Pat Condell says.

Oh, yes, there’s sooooo much racism in there. So much.

You want us to believe that outright racist dog whistles like ‘anti-white’ need to be ignored and that words like ‘honkey’ are racist?

You said that Christians don’t believe in OT laws.
You claim that Christians believe killing is a sin by using sources that reference OT laws.
I knew that you would do the latter, in contradiction to the former, and was mocking you for it.

Do you understand? Can you read those three sentences? Know all of the words? Do you understand how those words interact with one another in order to produce meaning? Do you understand how logic works? That logic is a good thing? How contradictions are not friendly with logic? Are you going to take your head out of your ass anytime soon?

You want us to believe that outright racist dog whistles like ‘anti-white’ need to be ignored and that words like ‘honkey’ are racist?

I’m well aware of those people who constantly go around the Internet and repeat that “anti-racism is a code word for anti-white”.

You want to know why the use of anti-white in this particular case is warranted? Because it is demonstrably true and people here have demonstrated that they have a lot of contempt for white people (as well as straight people), have no problem with using racial slurs as long as it’s directed against whites, dismiss racial based violence against them as “well they’re privileged and probably have enough money to get treated for their injuries”, don’t even have the decency to call a spade a spade, and are willing to support separate standards because “whites are privileged”. Screw that.

You said that Christians don’t believe in OT laws.
You claim that Christians believe killing is a sin by using sources that reference OT laws.

Look, maybe I wasn’t clear enough, there’s this thing called “Old Covenant” alright? All those laws you see in the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Kinda similar to Sharia law, at least at first glance, lots of irrational and barbaric laws in there with brutal punishments for not following them.

Only, it is not considered valid anymore as a whole. (It’s not even considered fully valid in mainstream Judaism for that matter because of the destruction of the Second Temple.) They may agree with some of the moral teachings, but they’re not likely to demand a political system based on or like that.

All the supremacist and barbaric aspects of it have pretty much been abrogated/cancelled/fulfilled/whateveryouwannacallit by the “New Covenant” (the 10 commandments have not, they’ve been re-affirmed, though without the barbaric punishments attached to them) and nobody but the most extreme sects of Christianity wants those parts returned in this day and age. Sects including for example the Westboro Baptist Church (which has specifically endorsed the killing of homosexuals as the only way for the US to “get right with God”) and the Dominionist movement which seems to want absolutely everything in there. They’re a joke and major denominations and sects think they’re crazy. It is extremely unlikely they will ever gain enough following to impact politics.

And before you bring up “CHRISTIAN UGANDA!!!” again look on the broader picture. How many Christian majority countries do it?

Same with Judaism. Come on, it’s not hard, there’s just one Jewish majority country in the world and even that is far from a theocracy. Even they have stopped following most of it.

You want to know why the use of anti-white in this particular case is warranted?

It is never warranted. It is only used by paranoid bigots wearing tin-foil-hats to protect themselves from the proper criticism and derision they deserve. You fit that to a tee. Try losing the tin-foil-hat, so you can admit the truth to yourself. You don’t like brown people in your country, which is acknowledging you are a bigot.

I would really like to know which policy of UKIP you find to be racist.

As for the EDL, given that their mission statement makes no mention of race, how do you know? I mean I will grant you that there are a lot of racists in the EDL and they’re not really accomplishing anything as an organization, why do you dismiss that others are there solely because they’re not very fond of Islam? How do you know what every single EDL member is thinking?

At this point you may wish to consider the difference between “what happens in some Muslim theocracies/near-theocracies” and “what Muslims everywhere do.” You might want to figure into your thinking the fact that many Muslim immigrants to Europe and elsewhere have fled those theocracies.

You might also wish to avoid “calling a spade a spade” as a figure of speech. Correctly speaking, it does indeed refer to the digging implement, but the unfortunate use of “spade” for other purposes has led to it being pretty much shunned, especially in the US.

You might want to figure into your thinking the fact that many Muslim immigrants to Europe and elsewhere have fled those theocracies.

Sure, I’ll grant you that, but as others have said countless times, just because there are moderate or secular Muslims doesn’t mean that Islam is moderate or secular. You want an analogy you can better understand? Many Catholics engage in premarital sex. But Catholic theology says it’s a sin.

I have, but I already knew you don’t know what racism is. Hint: when an organization is constituted largely of racists, and the effects of their actions have different effects on people of different races, an organization is in fact racist. The hypothetical existence of non-racist EDL members is irrelevant.

1. highly critical of Islam
2. think that Islam and Christianity are not equally damaging
3. not racist

If your answer is no, then you’ve already made up your mind and nothing anyone will ever say can convince you otherwise.

only in a parallel universe in which #2 were actually true. In other words, I’ve “made up my mind” about this in exactly the same way I’ve made up my mind about the existence of gods: the evidence points in one direction, and I’ll not be swayed by cries of closed-mindedness from dipshits who want me to believe untrue things.

I’m not. I’m pointing out that criticising the religion of Islam is fine; criticising the actions of people doing bad stuff in the name of Islam is fine. Criticising—if that isn’t to mild a word for what Condell and others are doing—all Muslims for the bad crap that some Muslims do, is not fine; and hanging such argument on teh ebils of immy-grashun is a tactic straight out of the racism book of Dog Whistles. If such people don’t want to be known as racists, they shouldn’t use racist arguments.

Loon Watch LOL, the Islamic supremacist site dedicated to whitewashing the brutality of Sharia and demonizing all critics of Islam whether it’s someone from the right or a liberal like Richard Dawkins.

Still, I’ll check that twitter account for myself. But I’m not going to take LW’s word for it.

anyway, I could entertain myself with this all day, but to any person who actually knows how racism works, the EDL is obviously racist; the silly claims to the contrary are as inane as the claims the Teabaggers aren’t racist.

Racist is as racist does, all the whining in the world won’t change that.

Remember, the shitstain is actually an ally to we queer people. We just should not take our frustration out on fine allies like him. This is because we are no as badly treated in the US and Europe as we are in islamic countries.

Remember, the shitstain is actually an ally to we queer people. We just should not take our frustration out on fine allies like him. This is because we are no as badly treated in the US and Europe as we are in islamic countries.

For the last time, stop repeating bullshit.

No, you shouldn’t ignore Christian homophobia, but you should be aware that’s it’s much easier to tackle and I don’t mean by a little bit, more like an order of magnitude more easier.

I’d point out that folks here aren’t demonizing straight whites (of which group I carry an official card), but rather straight whites who act like they know better about the plight of minority groups and how to fight on their behalf better than the minority groups themselves. But I feel it probably wouldn’t do much good.

No, you shouldn’t ignore Christian homophobia, but you should be aware that’s it’s much easier to tackle

Actually, it’s not easier to tackle, because you have to fight the tide of culture in this country to do so. “Tackling” Islamic homphobia is easier because you will then have all sorts of conservative Christian groups and assorted social regressives on your side happy to use women and gays as ammunition to attack the scary brown people with. The question is whether you’re okay with those bedfellows. This is why I no longer participate in Draw Mohammed Day, any rational nuance in that criticism was quickly drowned out by racism and bigotry.

Thanks for banning danieln, he really was an idiot of the highest degree.

As for the EDL, given that their mission statement makes no mention of race, how do you know?

^that is the intellectual level of daniel: as long as a person or organisation doesn’t explicitly say he/she/it is racist, then they are not racist. Danieln, you are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

That level of idiocy reminded me of when OSC wrote about how Obama was going to use his army of black thugs and idiots defended him because OSC did a “obviously not what I think is likely but this is what I think is likely” rider on it

People are that fucking stupid that if you say “I am not here” they’ll start looking to see where you ran off to